[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170621165921.tv2jfhf5dz7hsjsy@pd.tnic>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:59:22 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Toshimitsu Kani <toshi.kani@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 26/34] iommu/amd: Allow the AMD IOMMU to work with
memory encryption
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 05:37:22PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > Do you mean this is like the last exception case in that document above:
> >
> > "
> > - Pointers to data structures in coherent memory which might be modified
> > by I/O devices can, sometimes, legitimately be volatile. A ring buffer
> > used by a network adapter, where that adapter changes pointers to
> > indicate which descriptors have been processed, is an example of this
> > type of situation."
> >
> > ?
>
> So currently (without this patch) the build_completion_wait function
> does not take a volatile parameter, only wait_on_sem() does.
>
> Wait_on_sem() needs it because its purpose is to poll a memory location
> which is changed by the iommu-hardware when its done with command
> processing.
Right, the reason above - memory modifiable by an IO device. You could
add a comment there explaining the need for the volatile.
> But the 'volatile' in build_completion_wait() looks unnecessary, because
> the function does not poll the memory location. It only uses the
> pointer, converts it to a physical address and writes it to the command
> to be queued.
Ok.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists